Liberty Decides ‘08
The Libertarian Party just launched their new program to promote their presidential candidates, entitled Liberty Decides ‘08. Full details of the program are on this .pdf, and a briefer site description provides:
Liberty Decides ‘08 is a new program that will test the skills of our pre-nomination presidential hopefuls and report them regularly to our membership. In the end, the delegates at the National LP convention will make their own decision, but they will have the knowledge gained from this “interview” process.Additionally, 40% of all donations to this program will be set aside in a special fund to be used for expenditures coordinated with the candidate who does eventually win the LP nomination in convention. The remainder of the funds will be used to help the LP move forward with core issues such as media, ballot access and member recruitment.
In other words, one can vote for a candidate by making a donation to the national party. Forty percent of the proceeds will be used in coordinated presidential activities (such as advertising, direct mail, ballot access, etc.). They promised to use the remainder for core issues.
As of this posting (but I assume this will change quickly enough), Wayne Allyn Root is in the lead, followed closely by Mike Jingozian and Daniel Imperato. What’s interesting with the current numbers is that “Future/Unannounced Candidate” and “NOTA” are doing fairly well.
Because I suspected that most of the NOTA and Future Candidate donations came from Ron Paul supporters, I asked Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory if this was indeed the case. He told me that they had just sent out a Liberty Decides fundraising letter and (I believe) have only included one day’s worth of donations to the current totals. He confirmed that most of the NOTA and Future Candidate donations were marked with Ron Paul’s name.
This program looks like a win-win-win situation to me. To some degree, it serves as a polling mechanism to see where party support lies for the pre-nomination candidates. With the NOTA/Future Candidate options, Ron Paul supporters within the party can cast their vote. Additionally, it provides an easy way for max donors to stick it to John McCain and Russ Feingold by providing a greater than a max donation to the candidate of their choice.
It’s day one of a new program and I expect that we’ll see some of the leaders changing positions before too long. I’ll certainly be watching to see how this program develops.
November 16th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I had originally been invited to participate in this program. I declined. The LNC should not be selling this service.
I declined under the original rules, under which only money sent to the LNC counted for candidate rankings. I prefer to invest my donors’ money directly in a real campaign. The $5000 I could have sent to the LNC could instead have purchased something like 10 million Google AdWords impressions.
The LNC and its staff then changed the rules. Under the new rules, supposedly money sent by the campaign to states for ballot access was to be counted toward th $5000. After some exchange with Mr. Cory, Mr. Cory sent me a closing message
“Thanks for getting back to me, George.
I’ll take that as another decline.
...
If you change your mind in the future, the program will still be available as the same opportunity is presented to all candidates.”
I now find that I am being listed on the LNC Web page as a participant, despite having declined. I still think that using the candidates as LNC fund raisers is bad for the future of the party. Also, the LNC to the contrary, Phillies 2008 has sent money in the four digit range to state parties for ballot access.
In its paper mailing to members, the LNC used my photograph, and on the same sheet had an outline of a human head, with a “?” in front, labeled “Future Candidate”. The human head on the mailing was immediately identified by my staff graphics consultant; it is unambiguously that Republican.
The fund raising mailing claimed that the program will “We’ll be able to see which candidates can deliver on their campaign promises before our delegates cast their vote in our convention!” That claim is false. I have made lots of promises, but none of them is tested by this program.
Do you want to support ballot access? My campaign doesn’t have the huge overhead the LNC does. No $110,000 a year headquarters, for starters. Money sent to http://www.phillies2008.org and click (top right) on “donate” will, if earmarked for ballot access, after credit card fees all be spent on ballot access.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
When Dondero and I agree about anything, it is truly scary. We do agree on this: George Phillies is a joke.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
George,
Thanks for weighing in on this so quickly after the launch.
I wouldn’t consider Liberty Decides ‘08 a “service” that we’re selling. I would consider it competition. The same opportunity exists to all candidates and some are very excited about the program.
It’s unfortunate that you don’t appreciate the competitive nature of this new program but you have the option to put effort into it or not.
Our last exchange opened the opportunity for our state affiliates to benefit from the program as well, and I’m excited to see that some candidates are assisting our states as part of the program.
The reason for the change (which in the original rule set it explained that changes would occur) was because I heard of your contributions to the states and thought it was a great way to help the party. You and other candidates should get credit and praise for those efforts.
Unfortunately, your response to me was this:
“You are legally entitled to examine my campaign disbursement reports and make use of that information when the reports are filed.”
and
“My advisors do not believe that in the long run your proposals are beneficial to our party.”
Also, we originally were not going to provide links to “not yet qualified” candidates. However, I reversed course on this because the competitive incentive alone was working well and I believe our members should be aware of all candidates. This was also your suggestion as well per your last message:
“We strongly suggest that LP.ORG should at a minimum link in a uniform way to Presidential candidates who have made their FEC filings and satisfied the objective, independently verified FEC requirements for candidate status.”
Now, from your message above, you seem to be saying that you do not want to be listed as a candidate. However, I don’t think it is wise to accommodate that request as it would lead to future inquiries that start with “why are you leaving out ‘candidate x’?”
As for the direct mail piece and the image of whom you refer to as “that Republican,” I respectfully call him Dr. Paul. I think we should be capable of respecting those who fight for liberty regardless of their party affiliation.
With that said, we still have our own presidential contest for 2008. Here’s how I explained it in the letter:
“I realize that many libertarians across the nation are excited about the Ron Paul candidacy. I am as well, however I am also genuinely excited about the future of the Libertarian Party.”
I hope that Liberty Decides ‘08 will generate some buzz at least within the LP. A competitive pre-nomination process would be great for the party . . . especially since it won’t just be for “LP insiders” who are in the know. Now, casual visitors to our site can take a glance at our competition.
As for ballot access competitions, the LP also earmarks donations. Just click the donate button on LP.org and state “for Ballot Access” in your comments and we’ll apply the full amount to ballot access efforts . . . without even charging credit card fees as we consider those core costs.
I wish you and the other presidential contenders the best of luck and hope that you will continue to work to grow the party.
In Liberty,
Shane Cory
November 16th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Spending a few decades helping the Libertarian Party and then using your campaign to build the Libertarian Party by helping states with ballot access and running radio, and Internet ads is no joke. People with nothing better to do than attack hard working individuals like George Phillies are a joke.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:07 am
The “Liberty Decides” webpage (and pdf information file) seem to be incoherent. It is not very clear what this “competition” is about and it is poorly written.
Did the LNC come up with this or even approve this, or is this some scheme cooked up by LPHQ?
November 17th, 2007 at 2:10 am
The LNC approved it.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:36 am
The LNC passed it 13-0 with 4 abstentions. I lobbied for and voted for it.
It’s a new program and the LNC approved it with clauses inserted by Shane Cory indicating it was new and experimental and disclosing that therefore it was subject to change as the situation developed.
Nice to see it finally launched.
Phillies has been upset with the Libertarian Party since I’ve met him. Upon reading some of his writing, apparently he’s been upset long before I met him. It’s in his nature even if sometimes he’s right. Opponents of Phillies need not attack him. He’s by far his own worst enemy.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:30 am
I don’t have a problem in principle with the Liberty Decides project as it is now framed—it seems to be inclusive of all of the declared candidates, or at least those with any activity whatsoever to their names.
The implementation has been a little rocky—everything on it went silent for several months between “we’ll have a candidate-specific contribution page for the thing for Kubby and the other candidates shortly” (Imperato’s was already up at at that time) and my receipt of the snail mail fundraiser the other day. I had been looking forward to having that page in order to feature it on the Kubby web site, inform Kubby supporters by email, etc., and actually raise some money for the LP.
I agree with George that the use of Ron Paul’s silhouette as the “mystery man” is just plain wrong. Why not use Hillary Clinton’s silhouette? She’s a presidential candidate, too, and just like Ron Paul, she’s a presidential candidate competing FOR another team AGAINST the LP.
But … I hope to make a contribution to Liberty Decides shortly. I disagree with George that it’s a bad idea:
– It lets LP members demonstrate their support for a particular nomination candidate, while building a party fund for supporting whomever the nominee actually is. Readers should recall that in 2004, the delegates to the LP’s national convention nominated a presidential candidate whose campaign couldn’t even afford a room at the convention hotel for him. The post-nomination campaign had to fundraise from effectively $0 instead of hitting th ground running financially. If Liberty Decides works, whomever the nominee is will start with at least SOME money and be able to get into the fight faster and harder.
– Liberty Decides is also a place where donors who have made the maximum donation to a candidate can make additional contributions that, although they don’t accrue to that candidate’s pre-nomination campaign fund, do at least demonstrate their support for the candidate, and in so doing convey potentially useful information to other LP members as to which candidates enjoy how much support.
It’s not perfect, but what is? Some of George’s points are valid, but frankly I’m glad to see the LNC trying to address the matter of having money ready to go for the post-nomination campaign instead of risking another standing start like we had last time (and I’m not criticizing Badnarik for that, btw—he accomplished a hell of a lot in five months even with that handicap).
Regards,
Tom Knapp
November 17th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Little Jim, Dondero & I agree on being against RP/RP. & I find I usually agree with Prof. Phillies. At best I’m ambivalent about this. It is even more crass an equation of $=candidate than the dems & reps. But since you libs vouch for the godless free market (contrary to the CP which vouches for the godly free market) & until the greens mount a REAL revolution, this is the only $##%@$&**!! game in town so count me $##%@$&**!! in. Dammit.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:14 am
How am I going to explain this to the Groucho-Marxists?
November 17th, 2007 at 4:31 am
This certainly helps Stephen Gordon’s plan to pull up in a limo with Ron Paul at the back door of the convention.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:41 am
& if he gets the nom. but the LP doesn’t have 100% ballot access he can thank his own RP/RP campaign!
November 17th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I don’t know if Mr. Phillies is really a joke. He’s really not that funny. Maybe if he got a mullet wig, I’d be more inclined to laugh.
But, assuming that Phillies is a joke, what does that make the rest of the candidates featured on the Liberty Decides webpage?
Just when I think the world couldn’t get any weirder, the LP launches a “program that will test the skills of our pre-nomination presidential hopefuls” and the top 3 candidates are Root, Jingozian, and Imperato.
Now I’m left to wonder what skills are being tested. Perhaps the skill of Imperato to obtain a credit card?
November 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I am very specifically not a supporter of George Phillies’s campaign for the LP’s presidential nomination for a number of reasons (all of them pre-existing, and irrelevant to, my support for Kubby).
However, neither Dr. Phillies nor his campaign are, or deserve to be called, “jokes.”
Regardless of whether or not one supports Dr. Phillies as a presidential candidate, or a candidate for internal office in the LP, or even likes him, he has for years put his money and his time where his mouth is, and that money and time has produced tools and resources which are helpful to the party regardless of whether or not he wins the particular election, or whether or not the side he’s on wins on the particular issue he’s interested in.
I very much wish that Dr. Phillies hadn’t allowed his quixotic streak to trump sound judgment on the issue of running for president, but he remains an asset to the party despite it having done so.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
As I recall reading the mailer from the LP, to be eligible for money from this program, a candidate had to have filed with the FEC.
I saw Wayne Allan Root on the LP’s list, but last I heard (several months ago), Root had not yet filed with the FEC. Has that changed by now?
November 17th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Phillies is a joke. So is Mike Jingozian. Wayne Allan Root just filed with the FEC a week ago, and he didn’t even bother showing up to a lot of the LP conventions. He’s behind the ball and does not have my support.
November 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
This coming from the guy (probably Imperato himself) that continually states that everyone in the country of importance is trying to run with Daniel Imperato.
It says a lot about the shallow campaign Imperato is running that he has to resort to tactics like this.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Quoth Thomas Sipos:
“I saw Wayne Allan Root on the LP’s list, but last I heard (several months ago), Root had not yet filed with the FEC. Has that changed by now?”
Yes, he has, as of a couple of weeks ago.
Root “announced his candidacy” earlier this year on a local Las Vegas television program. But later, he told Michelle Shinghal in a blog interview that he hadn’t decided whether or not to run and wouldn’t until this fall. Apparently he decided in the affirmative, as he is now registered with the FEC as a candidate.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
November 17th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I demand to have the REAL libertarian, Robert Milnes included on this program. I am a wealthy billionaire who has made billions of dollars in capitalist piggery and I want to donate all of them to the one man who can unite the Progressive Vote and win the White House by popular vote, say 34/33/33 and also qualify for matching funds with 5%.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
The LP’s best pick for 2008 would be Ron Paul (as I’m sure many Libertarians agree).
Assuming Paul doesn’t want to run, we should entice (beg, plead, cajole) longtime Virginia LP member, LewRockwell.com contributor, and Retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski to run. A candidate with military experience and gravitas, one that the mainstream media would take far more seriously than the current announced bunch.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Boret Lemnis Says:
November 17th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I demand to have the REAL libertarian, Robert Milnes included on this program. I am a wealthy billionaire who has made billions of dollars in capitalist piggery and I want to donate all of them to the one man who can unite the Progressive Vote and win the White House by popular vote, say 34/33/33 and also qualify for matching funds with 5%
That might explain why this username is merely an anagram for Robert Milnes. Ron Paul, despite being a Republican, is still more libertarian than you, as libertarians are anything but Progressive. He would probably be the best showing for the LP ever, and would have a good chance at beating even Perot’s ‘96 numbers.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Mssr. Jas – It is merely coincidence that the letters in my name can be arranged to spell Bob Milnes. I did not notice that myself until now. I am lifelong GOPer and I will never vote Republican again. Ron Paul is a dinosaur not a Progressive/ REAL libertarian like Bob Milnes. Ron Paul can not be elected because he will not get the Progressive vote. Bob Milnes can do this, as he has proven using neo-classical charts and graphs. Ron Paul the losertarian dinosaur cannot get matching funds, which Milnes can. It has been proven!
Ron Paul cannot beat Perot’s numbers but if he could who cares? Bob Milnes can win the popular vote by uniting the Progressive Vote. He has already said that if a more qualified candidate emerges he will step down provided he is given a paid position in the campaign and the campaign is run exactly how he thinks it should be, since his way is the only way the Progressive Vote will unite the two progressive parties of LP and GP.
The Losertarian National Committee doing its best to deny Bob Milnes the nomination, despite the fact that he is clearly #1. I support a ticket of Bob Milnes and Christy Smith, who is model and John Denver censorist fan biography. This is the perfect Progressive Alliance and I will bankroll this entire campaign with my own money, which I have made by being an evil pig and I feel shamed.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
First of all, I don’t even know why I even bother talking to you, given that it is incredibly obvious that you are a Milnes sockpuppet. Second, my thesis that Paul could beat Perot’s numbers was already upheld by a recent poll that had Paul at 8% in a general election as the Libertarian nominee. Second, that poll also had Nader, a progressive, at a measly 4%, meaning that your strategy at best would only be half as sucessful as nomination the doctor who, while has quelms with the LP on abortion and immigration, is still more libertarian that you, which as indicated in your post, cannot even understand even the basic benefits of a capitalist system. You cannot even comprehend that a billionaire who hasn’t made his money through corporate welfare is definitely not an ‘evil pig’, whereas Ron Paul has an outstanding understanding of economics.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Borret Lemnis should do a YouTube for the Milnes campaign. Hugh Jas,Actually there are 2 Perot numbers. Paul might could reach the lower but not the higher of the 2. & you don’t divide or subtract the progressive(green) & the lib, you ADD them.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Hugh Jas ; Your name sounds like “huge ass.” My name is not a transliteration for Bob Milnes because I am missing one R. That R is for Republican for which I will never vote again.
RP/RP is a woman hating zenofobe and not a REAL libertarian Progressive. We need a candidate who can unite the Progressive Vote. I admit that Bob Milnes may not be the best, but his strategy is the most solid.
As for you thinking that I was Bob Milnes that just shows your ignorance. I have no way of prooving I am Boret Lemnis, but if you knew anything about business, you would know that I was on the Forbes 1000 Global list. RP hates rich people while Bob Milnes just hates their wealth.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:26 am
I concur that Paul would reach the lower of Perot’s numbers if he were to run. Also, you just conceded that you are a Milnes sockpuppet by telling me where that missing R came from. I also could not find you name anywhere on the Forbes 1000 List.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Lemnis is not Milnes. Milnes is not smart enough for that.
Lemnis is the work of some clever satirist. The satire is subtle, but funny. The best part is that Milnes cannot even tell he is being parodied.
November 18th, 2007 at 10:25 am
radgeek.com
Quotations from Chairman Ron (posted 15 November 2007)
Here’s a few items that I noticed in Ron Paul’s platform on Immigration and Border Security today. Emphasis is mine.
*
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. …
*
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. …
*
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. …
Given these three proposals, we can infer the following from their conjunction:
* We must do whatever it takes to aggressively and rigidly enforce the terms of a system of laws admittedly incoherent and unfair.
November 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Shane Cory writes:
As for the direct mail piece and the image of whom you refer to as “that Republican,” I respectfully call him Dr. Paul. I think we should be capable of respecting those who fight for liberty regardless of their party affiliation.
To which I point out that this is the same Shane Cory who wrote to me a line which I have had as my sig line on the FSP forum for about a year now (or more?):
“I’m more than happy for our candidates to lose as Libertarians rather than win or show as Republicans or Democrats.”
Change of heart, Shane, or just more of your two-sided nature?
I don’t trust you with the LP’s future, and neither should anyone else.
Your behavior on items like LibertyDecides so far is shameful.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Imperato is not a Libertarian. He may have bought into the LP, but is registered with the FEC as an Independent candidate. See:
http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/pres_cf/presidential_list.pdf
Also, his own announcement denies that he is a Libertarian candidate:
“On July 21, 2006, Daniel J. Imperato announced his Independent candidacy for President of the United States in 2008.”
The LP should not be letting Imperato buy space on their website or time at their events. Imperato makes Barr look like a dedicated long-time Party worker (which of course he is not).
As a suggestion for improving the competition, I thin it’d be good to separate the categories of candidate-provided funds vs donations made in a candidate’s name.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Mm, I’m not fond of this idea myself. It seems to me that it’s bait-and-switch- send in money under the claim of supporting one candidate, then using it to support another.
That’s fraud.
I thought the Libertarian Party opposed fraud.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Wow. You’re kidding, right?
If you submited money to the LP via this program under the assumption that you would be directly supporting the bankroll of a specific candidate, then you are an idiot.
It does.
Because you cry fraud for a fundraising gimmick, where the rules are clearly outlined, the recipient of the money is clearly noted, and the manner in which that money will be used is clearly provided does not make it actually fraud.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Quoth Susan Hogarth:
“The LP should not be letting Imperato buy space on their website or time at their events” [because a government agency says he’s an “Independent” candidate rather than a “Libertarian” candidate]
Mr. Imperato is a declared candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.
Mr. Imperato is apparently qualified for the nomination per the bylaws, and is presumably a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, having contributed in excess of $5,000 to it in the last year.
Mr. Imperato is participating in at least two state Libertarian Party primaries (California and Missouri).
To in any way exclude Mr. Imperato from equal access to the party’s various activities pursuant to the presidential nomination process for no better reason than his reporting status with a government bureaucracy—the very existence of which most libertarians oppose—strikes me as not only silly but a very bad precedent.
November 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Tom,
You have completely (and most irritatingly) mischaracterized my objection, which is that Imperato himself has publicly described and announced himself (in at least two places) as an Independent candidate, and only describes himself as a Libertarian candidate when it suits him (that is, when he is speaking to Libertarians). I am fairly comfortable that you and I can agree he’s no libertarian by any generous measure – no more than, say, Bill Clinton.
I honestly don’t know what the answer is. I do see the dangers of a screening committee. I’m just not sure I’m comfortable with giving space to anyone who buys in on the Party’s website.
Maybe there could be a table with each announced candidate’s position on each (surviving) platform plank, so that the membership could see how closely each candidate aligns with the Party’s platform. Candidates who refuse to answer the questions could be excluded from this program.
The members of the LNC and staff who are being overly solicitous to Imperato rather than politely but firmly explaining carefully the blunt truth – that he will never, and could never, get the LP nomination – are doing both Imperato and the Party a huge disservice. I think it’s pretty much unacceptable that for ponying up 5K, a guy can get his program at the top of a list of “Libertarian” candidates with such an anti-libertarian program as this fellow has.
Of course, maybe they
haveexplained the inevitability of failure to him. I’ve had the … experience … of speaking to him, and he is singularly caught up in his fantasy that waving around a couple of thousand bucks here and there can get him a place at the LP ballot-access table.He won’t get the nomination. But he can publicly embarrass the Party with his support for Social Security and militarism.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The fact is Imperato originally declared as an independent candidate, or no party affiliation. Currently he is seeking the nomination of the Green, Libertarian, and Reform Parties. I think that legally he has to be registered as an independent to do so. Personally he is registered as a member of the Libertarian Party.
Also not for nothing he has helped the party out by fundraising, and contributing which has helped the LP get more ballot access and Daniel Imperato has helped bring more registered Libertarians. So whether you like him or not, or even agree with his positions, what he has done for the party is undisputed.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I agree. Imperato isn’t such a bad guy. You should listen to his weekly broadcasts on his website www.imperato2008, every wednesday at 8pm. He does have some interesting ideas and if we do have a problem with Imperato he gives us an avenue to talk with him and voice our opinions.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Jay and Robert:
Do you guys know each other? It’s funny, two pro-Imperato comments, one immediately following the other.
November 19th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Susan,
“You have completely (and most irritatingly) mischaracterized my objection, which is that Imperato himself has publicly described and announced himself (in at least two places) as an Independent candidate, and only describes himself as a Libertarian candidate when it suits him (that is, when he is speaking to Libertarians).”
I’m sorry if you think I’m mischaracterizing you, but I see it like this:
Apart from his FEC status—which he established early on before he became interested in the LP’s nomination and which for all I know may be difficult or even impossible to change midstream—Imperato is indistinguishable in terms of objective mechanistic criteria from the other declared candidates.
He’s punched the tickets. He’s declared for the LP nomination, he’s joined/contributed to the LP, he’s made himself available to Libertarian event audiences, talk radio hosts, etc. So far as I know his brochures now refer to him as a “Libertarian” candidate (albeit with the prefix “Independent”).
I am of the very firm opinion that the LNC/LPHQ must not operate outside objective mechanistic criteria in determining who is allowed to buy ads in LP News, rent the LP mailing list, be listed on the LP web site as a candidate, etc. I guess there might be exceptions—and I’ve made such exceptions as an executive committee member at the state level for, for example, avowed white supremacists seeking the LP’s ballot line—but they should be rare and based on an overwhelming body of evidence. I just don’t see that applying to Imperato. He’s delusional and annoying, but putting up with delusional and annoying is probably the price we have to pay in order to maintain a reasonably open/contestible nomination process.
“I am fairly comfortable that you and I can agree he’s no libertarian by any generous measure – no more than, say, Bill Clinton.”
Absolutely. In case I haven’t made it clear to everyone before, I do not support Imperato for the LP’s presidential nomination. I’ve studied his positions and, to the extent that they’re coherent at all, I don’t consider them libertarian. I consider that THE basic question—if the answer is “no,” the process need go no further (into matters of charisma, business acumen, persuasiveness, etc.).
“I honestly don’t know what the answer is. I do see the dangers of a screening committee. I’m just not sure I’m comfortable with giving space to anyone who buys in on the Party’s website.”
I didn’t say I was comfortable with it. I just said I’m uncomfortable—irreconciliable, really—with the alternative.
Actually, I think we’re in pretty good shape here—Liberty Decides provides easy access to candidate web sites, etc., as well as a way to move candidates one supports “up” or “down” the visibility list. If Imperato remains in the “top three,” it’s because Libertarians want him there. If they don’t, they’ll contribute to move other candidates ahead of Imperato.
“Maybe there could be a table with each announced candidate’s position on each (surviving) platform plank, so that the membership could see how closely each candidate aligns with the Party’s platform. Candidates who refuse to answer the questions could be excluded from this program.”
That requires a judgment of whether or not a candidate’s positions DO align with the planks—and as we’ve seen with Mr. Phillies and his claim that his position on immigration aligns with the LP’s platform, such judgments tend to be very subjective.
I don’t like the situation—or Imperato’s candidacy itself—any more than you do. I just don’t see any good way of getting rid of the situation, or of Imperato’s candidacy. The only positive thing I see here is that hopefully the outcome will accrue to discouraging other delusionals from seeking our nomination in the future.
November 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“That requires a judgment of whether or not a candidate’s positions DO align with the planks…”
Well, yes. That’s sort of the point. Give each candidate a table with the plank number on the left side and a 50-word (or fewer) blank spot on the right side. Then let libertarians judge which candidates are libertarian. We’d still have the non-libertarians up there, but it could be clearly observed which ones
And, no, I don’t think a candidate has to be 100% platform compliant to be a good Libertarian candidate. But it’s the best guideline we have. Why not pout it to use. National could be
helpingLibertarians decide, and helping non-libertarians see that not all the candidates are really very libertarian. It would not be at all difficult.I like having candidates raise money for the Party. One easy way to help readers distinguish between candidates who have more dollars than sense would be to list – along with the total contribution – the NUMBER of individual contributions, and/or make a certain number of individual supporters a criterion at the same level as total dollars raised/given.
These two simple measures – requiring a 50-word statement on each platform plank from each candidate, and listing the number of individual contributors as well as total dollars raised – would represent a
significantimprovement on a very interesting program, I think.November 19th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
How is our small pond big enough for all these frogs?
November 19th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
The reason I was asking if Jay and Robert know each other is because their comments came from the same IP address. Here’s a cut-and-paste:
New comment on your post #1794 “Liberty Decides ‘08”
Author : Robert Greene (IP: 64.244.226.20 , 64.244.226.20) E-mail : [e-mail address deleted but looks like a fake]
URI :
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.244.226.20
New comment on your post #1794 “Liberty Decides ‘08”
Author : Jay Harris (IP: 64.244.226.20 , 64.244.226.20) E-mail : [e-mail address deleted but looks like a fake]
URI :
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.244.226.20
Not only does it appear that TeamImperato is trying to spam comment threads, it also appears to be a team of one.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Roscoe,
Of the 12 “frogs” on the page, I’d classify 10 as more in the tadpole category.
Running for the LP’s presidential nomination is a cheaper way to get an ego stroke than running for a major party nomination. People who wouldn’t be able to get pedestrians to stop on the sidewalk for them in New Hampshire as a Republican actually get a gratifying response (in quantity if not quality) from a small party. In my opinion, that accounts, consciously or subconsciously, for seven of the twelve.
As for three of the other five, I think of them as sort of “internal candidates”—long-time LP members with an ideological or organizational interest in the LP itself that they’re massaging by offering themselves as candidates (or, if you want to be less charitable, an ideological or organization axe that they want to use the nomination process to grind). I know all three of them, and I like all three of them. There’s one of them I’d even consider supporting except that my own preferred candidate …
... Steve Kubby … is one of the two (along with Wayne Root) who has any significant name recognition, constituency or political record whatsoever outside the party itself.
This being my fourth presidential election cycle as an LP member, of course, I no longer labor under the misimpression that the convention delegates will necessarily give great weight to such unimportant matters as whether or not anyone outside the LP gives a tinker’s damn about, or has even heard of, the candidate they nominate. But if they did, it would be a Kubby/Root race, leaning lopsidedly toward Kubby.
November 19th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
[...] It looks like the Libertarian Party has recognized that most of their members support Ron Paul’s Republican campaign for president. On Friday, I announced that the LP had launched a new online program called Liberty Decides ‘08. It allows people to vote, with their dollars, for the LP presidential candidate of their choice. Additionally, one can vote for NOTA (none-of-the-above) or for a future, yet unannounced candidate. The proceeds go to help the eventual nominee and the party in general. [...]
November 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Hmmm … CQ Whois gives the actual latitude longitude of the server from which those spoofs are coming as 38 degrees north, 97 degrees west … somewhere in the neighborhood of Wichita, Kansas. The server owner, XO Communications, is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier, so that’s kind of a dead end, and other than some news releases in the same PR feeds, I don’t see an obvious relationship. Anyone know if Imperato has a Wichita office?
November 19th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Tom, sorry, no. $=candidate. Therefore the ticket most in demand is Root/Jingo.
November 19th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Bob,
I’m all for free market economics, but the “wealth” which ultimately counts in this particular piece of this particular race is not dollars, it’s delegate votes—and the two do not necessarily correlate closely, or even at all.
May I remind you that in 2004 the candidate among the “top three” who had raised the least money, spent the least money and had the least money on hand won the nomination?
That’s not the usual course of things, but it isn’t a gross anomaly, either—in 1984, the nomination went to a guy who hadn’t declared his candidacy and hadn’t even planned on attending the convention. He caught a redeye flight at the urging of supporters. He had raised no money. He had spent no money. So far as I know, he hadn’t even seriously considered running … but he showed up and beat the “obvious” candidate, a former Jimmy Carter foreign policy advisor who was backed by the well-financed Crane/Koch bloc of the party.
All things considered, I’d rather have more money than less, and I’d rather see my candidate going into the convention with every advantage possible … but it will take more than a few thousand dollars on a web site tally for Root to pull up from the likely third, possibly fourth place finsish he’d pull if the delegate votes were cast tomorrow.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Tom, spin meister par excellance. & you have facts & historic scenarios also. You are good. So good you have given hope to the bottom tier-ME!
November 20th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Milnes likes to say “$ = nomination” because that way he can justify his own failure as a candidate with his failure as a productive member of society; the latter of which he takes great pride in.
November 20th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
GES, my original family doctor (now deceased) wrote in my file “...severe reactive depression…”. To ME, looking around & seeing things the way they are is so depressing that it disables me. To me that is normal. Thoreau was asked in jail, “What are I am not proud of that nor am I ashamed. Thoreau was asked in jail, “What are you doing in there?” His reply:” What are you doing out there?”
November 20th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I think my computer picked up a virus on the blogosphere so look out.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
[...] I had thought that statement was aimed at the Libertarian National Committee, or more specifically executive director Shane Cory, for their veiled promotion of Ron Paul in their Liberty Decides program. My former employer just informed me that he had spoken with Knapp on the issue and Knapp reportedly stated that he had aimed that statement at me, not the national office. [...]
November 20th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
[...] Since TPW broke the story that the Libertarian Party had announced their Liberty Decides program, the feedback and fallout has been interesting. First of all, they’ve updated the totals. The positions of top three candidates haven’t shifted, but thousands of additional dollars have been donated since the program launched. [...]